Disposed¶22

Vikas Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026WRIA/589/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unpaid wages/salary; Salesman; society and its Board of Directors resolution dated 26.2.2024; mandamus for payment of wages; plea that appointment not in accordance with law rejected for purposes of payment; non-payment equated to begar, constitutionally impermissible; direction to release remuneration within ten days; case listed fresh on 12.3.2026; Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; WRIT - A No. 589 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to release the petitioner's remuneration within ten days; the writ petition was not finally disposed of and was listed on 12.3.2026 as fresh. ¶22

Vikas Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 589 of 2026

Vikas Kumar Sharma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akshara Rai, Sujeet Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Mahesh Narayan Mishra, C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶13

" i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no. 3 to make payment of wages to the petitioner as per resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the society dated 26.2.2024 (Annexure: 1 to the writ petition);

¶14

ii) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner be entitled under law. "

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working on the post of Salesman, however, salary of the petitioner has not been paid since 20.1.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that although the petitioner has worked with the respondent no. 3 however his appointment is not in accordance with law.

¶17

It is to be seen that once respondent no. 3 has taken work from the petitioner then the salary is required to be paid by the respondents. The non payment of salary is put to beggar which is constitutionally not

WRIA No. 589 of 2026

permissible.